9/24/2014

Conservative advocacy group Americans for Prosperity has released a new anti-Obama ad aimed at reaching women. Although it brings up some valid concerns, it’s sappy and has a silly premise with President Obama cast as a bad boyfriend. Unfortunately, for me the messaging is lost in the girly-girl nonsense and diminishes points being made. Personally, I wish both sides of the aisle would just stop making campaign ads as they typically miss the mark, and whether by a mile or a hair they usually end up nearly unbearable to watch.

Anyway, the ad opens with a pretty woman wearing pink and pearls talking straight to the camera:

“In 2008 I fell in love. His online profile made him seem so perfect. Handsome, smart, charming, articulate. All the right values. I trusted him,” a woman in a soft living room setting says to the camera in what looks like a commercial for an online dating site.

“By 2012 our relationship was in trouble, but I stuck with him because he promised he’d be better,” she says, as the pleasant feel of the commercial quickly gets more ominous.

“He told me we’d be safe,” she says. “Have you looked at the news? He’s in my emails and text messages, spying on me but ignoring real threats.

“He said that we’d finally get on our feet financially. I’ll never pay down what he’s spent,” she continues. “He thinks the only thing I care about is free birth control, but he won’t even let me keep my own doctor.”

By this time her computer screen has shown the man she is talking about is Obama.

“I know I’m stuck with Barack for two more years … but I’m not stuck with his friends,” she says, a reference to the November midterm elections in which Republicans hope to retain control of the House of Representatives and take over the Senate.

“I’m looking for someone who gets that this isn’t about him,” the woman says. “It’s about us.”

In reading about the ad, I stumbled across a bit of huff-puffery from a described “active feminist and LGBTQI advocate” who slammed the ad as designed to convince women to abandon the Democrats for Republicans by playing on one of the most loathsome stereotypes about female voters—that we vote for male politicians we want to fuck.”

Which reminded me of something:

The writer continues her assault:

This is what conservatives think of (straight/bi?) women: That we vote based on who we think is the cutest boy; that we view our (male) political representatives as our boyfriends; that we are not offended by categorizing disappointment in a politician as an abusive relationship; that we think it’s totally appropriate to suggest the President is stalking us like an intimate partner; that we don’t hear or care about racist dog whistles like referring to the black President as “articulate”; that we don’t find it wildly disrespectful to refer to the President as “Barack,” especially to maintain the reprehensible illusion that he’s our mean boyfriend; that we think caring about free birth control is frivolous; that we are stupid. Very, very stupid.

The story is a few days old, but I just ran across something that seemed apropos to the story. And anyway: the issue here is the government taking over health care in service to a twisted ideology — and isn’t that issue timeless?

So, a week ago, Ezekiel Emanuel had an essay in the Atlantic titled Why I Hope to Die at 75. The deck headline reads: “An argument that society and families—and you—will be better off if nature takes its course swiftly and promptly.”

If Ezekiel Emanuel wants to die at 75, that is his choice. More power to him. But I don’t give a rat’s ass what he thinks about whether others should be living past 75. He has no business deciding the point for others. Perhaps I am a little sensitive to this, as my own mom is . . . 76 years old.

Of course, he disclaims any such intent. He claims he does not mean to disparage people who want to live past 75. But he has a very lengthy piece in a prominent publication that basically says most people are worthless after 75. He’s not just talking about himself. Even though he denies it’s so, he is trying to persuade you to agree with him.

So who is this guy anyway, and why do we care what he has to say? His bio at the end of the piece says:

Ezekiel Emanuel is director of the Clinical Bioethics Department at the U.S. National Institutes of Health and heads the Department of Medical Ethics & Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania.

What the bio does not mention is that Emanuel is one of the architects of ObamaCare. Here is a piece by Emanuel in the Wall Street Journal talking about his extensive role in the crafting of that law.

When you get government involved in health care, you are headed for rationing. You are no longer free to make decisions with your doctor; those decisions will — mark my words — I say those decisions will eventually be made by people in government. I don’t care how many fact-checkers declare this to be a “lie” — when government controls something, you lose freedom. Period.

And one of the first places rationing will take place? In the care of older people. Emanuel is trying to make the case — posing as a disinterested observer — that this is a good thing. But in reality, this is propaganda for the Brave New World of the federal government deciding how long you should live, along with all the other things it is (and will be) deciding for you.

This morning I ran across a piece written by a 76-year-old, talking about how excited she was to have begun taking online courses. The piece begins:

On the eve of my 76th birthday in May, I felt a rare excitement. With people living to be 100, I wondered about the long years that lay ahead of me. Would my life be more of the same, or could a new passage possibly begin?

I looked to Grandma Moses (1860-1961), the celebrated American artist, who started a new career at… 76! All her life, she lived and worked on a farm, embroidering fabrics until she developed arthritis and found needlework too painful.

It was then that she taught herself to paint, although she was more proud of her preserves than her paintings, which she gave her many friends, including the postman!

Here, by the way, is an image from a Grandma Moses painting that is shown in the article:

In an interesting turn of events, a California same-sex couple relocated to Texas. The problem began when one of the spouses went to get a Texas drivers license:

Connie Wilson and her partner Aimee relocated to the Houston area with their three kids. Connie took on Aimee’s last name when they were legally married in California more than a year ago.

However, Connie Wilson said she is now being told that name doesn’t legally belong to her in the Lone Star State.

“It’s really hard to accept that someone is telling me I can’t have my name,” she said. “I was denied based on a marriage license.”

After presenting several legal documents, including her California marriage license, to an official at a Texas Department of Public Safety office in Pasadena, Wilson was told that because same-sex marriage is not legal in Texas, her married last name cannot appear on her Texas driver’s license.

“I’m being prohibited from having the last name of my children. I think that’s a violation of me as a person,” Wilson said. “I may as well pick another name out a hat.”

The Texas Department of Public Safety released a statement:

To receive a Texas Driver License or Identification Card reflecting a name change from a same-sex marriage, a court order is required. DPS does not track the statistics related to your inquiry.

Wilson sought help, and as a result State Sen. Sylvia Garcia is looking into the matter. No word whether Wilson has petitioned the court yet for a name change. And no word of a lawsuit filed. Yet.

SEARCH AMAZON USING THIS SEARCH BOX:
Purchases made through this search function benefit this site, at no extra cost to you.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.